Telephoto Lens or Teleconverter?

[MichaelHenson]

So, my I would like to poll the audience.

For sports (thinking soccer as that's when I would be furthest from my subject, most likely), would you recommend a third party telephoto (Sigma or Tamron, etc.) or a teleconverter?

I'm working with a D5200 and my "long" lens is a 70-200mm. I'd like to be able to "get close" enough to fill the frame with individual subjects and foresee some difficulty with this on a large playing field, such as a soccer field. This is still just a hobby and is something that I want to try before unloading a professional's budget on a huge telephoto or whatever is budget is a priority. I want something that will autofocus on the D5200 and provide sharp images.

I've seen some Sigma 70-300mm lenses for a couple hundred or less and the occasional teleconverter for less than that.... Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Michael

 

[SnappingShark]

My personal choice would be a lens over a converter - but then I don't know whether you have a budget in mind, or you're thinking about space in your kit bag.

I have a Sigma 150-500 for sale - if that interests you - I won't link to it here - but anyway - think more about whether you want to save space, money, or the image.

For the technical side of things - you may be able to get 1.4 or 2x closer with a converter, but you will not be allowing as much light in.
There will probably be more camera shake to a converter too - unless it has built in image stabilization. But this is also true of some longer length lenses.
Speed of autofocus is also reduced with converters - the image isn't usually AS good either.

So on the above, I'd go with a lens.

 

[acparsons]

I bought a teleconverter a few years back. The one I had doubled the f stops. Wasn't good/fast enough to do much. I spent about 150 on this: Kenko 1.4x Teleplus MC4 DGX Auto Focus Tele Converter for Nikon AF AFS Lens

It was fun to play around with for a while, but has a low resale value.

 

[Overread]

Specifically which 70-200mm lens do you have?

 

[robbins.photo]

So, my I would like to poll the audience.

For sports (thinking soccer as that's when I would be furthest from my subject, most likely), would you recommend a third party telephoto (Sigma or Tamron, etc.) or a teleconverter?

I'm working with a D5200 and my "long" lens is a 70-200mm. I'd like to be able to "get close" enough to fill the frame with individual subjects and foresee some difficulty with this on a large playing field, such as a soccer field. This is still just a hobby and is something that I want to try before unloading a professional's budget on a huge telephoto or whatever is budget is a priority. I want something that will autofocus on the D5200 and provide sharp images.

I've seen some Sigma 70-300mm lenses for a couple hundred or less and the occasional teleconverter for less than that.... Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Michael

Ok, so my answer is.. depends.. lol.

TC's work fine especially on a crop sensor like the D5200 if you have fast glass to start with, thing about a TC is it will cut the amount of light coming in - for a 1.4 it's about 1 fstop usually, for a 2x it's 2 fstops. So when I use a 2x 2x TC on my 70-200 f/2.8 it becomes a 140-400 mm at f/5.6 which is still good enough to allow enough light in for my D5200's to autofocus. With slower glass though, I don't recommend TC's - the autofocus looses too much light and as a result it tends to hunt or not be able to lock on at all.

Ok, second thing on TC's is that not all lenses will work with all TC's and vice versa - and you don't want to get a super cheap TC because the optical quality is.. well, pretty bad usually. So first I'd check to see if your lens actually has a TC available that will work with it. When you go to buy a TC, I don't recommend new. Check KEH's website and you'll get some killer deals usually, thing about TC's is a ton of people buy them new and try to use them with slow glass, like 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6 and then they find out the autofocus stops working or the lens doesn't fit the TC at all.

So they turn around and sell it after only trying to use it once or twice - and as a result you can get pretty much brand new TC's at about half what a real TC would cost you.

Ok, so assuming you want to go the TC route, the upside is if you were planning on taking the 70-200 mm f/2.8 anyway adding in a TC makes it very versatile because you have the ability to shoot faster glass with less telephoto or slower glass with more telephoto and all you need to do is swap the TC in and out. I love mine for this reason.

The downside is that a fast 70-200 mm F/2.8 is more weight to carry around than a smaller, more compact (albeit slower) 70-300 mm. So something to consider before making your final decision as to which is going to be your best route.

 

[MichaelHenson]

I'd have to look to be sure. I'm pretty certain its a Nikon 4 (or 4.5) to 5.6 with VR. It's a nice lens, obviously not professional quality, but it does what I need it to do.

@ BrightbyNature - I saw your post... Wish I had that kind of $$ laying around, I'd definitely purchase if I did!

Budget-wise, I'd like to stay around $200 or less. I'm leaning more towards another lens because of the drawbacks to a converter that were mentioned above. The idea is great but I'm afraid that all the negative aspects of a converter add up pretty quickly.

I'm looking at a Sigma 70-300MM (4-5.6) in my price range on eBay. To buy or not to buy?